Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

32 results for “TDS”+ Section 220clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi573 Patna469 Mumbai380 Bangalore141 Pune125 Hyderabad97 Karnataka87 Chennai85 Jaipur52 Visakhapatnam48 Kolkata43 Raipur33 Lucknow32 Chandigarh31 Ahmedabad29 Indore27 Cochin21 Nagpur17 Kerala8 Rajkot8 Ranchi7 Agra4 Jodhpur4 Amritsar3 Surat3 Dehradun3 Cuttack2 SC2 Telangana1 Calcutta1 Rajasthan1 Varanasi1 Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 234E82 Section 1144 Section 200A21 Section 12A17 Addition to Income17 TDS17 Section 143(3)16 Deduction16 Natural Justice16 Section 2(15)

JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 464/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, DR

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

TDS CPC, on processing of the said correction statement reiterated the late filing fee of Rs.14,600/- and also levied interest under section 220

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

15

Section 220(2)12

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

220/- under section 68 of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. Finally, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had refunded deposits/advances in cash to certain persons amounting to Rs. 34,98,688/-. He held that the provisions of section 269T were applicable and he therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 305/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

S.B.I RBO III (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 76/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 304/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

STATE BANK OF INDIA, FUND SETTLEMENT OFFICE,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 22/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

EVROY INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD. ,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC-2, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 260/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Evroy Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. V. Acit C-48, Kalyanpur Central Circle 2 Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadce4237F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kanpur – 4 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Was Carried Out On 17.01.2019 In Dr. M.C. Sharma, S.P.M. Hospital & Trauma Centre Group Of Cases & Also In The Case Of The Assessee’S Firm. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Infrastructure Development & Other Related Work. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 27.05.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.71,940/-. During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

220/-. 2.2 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act. ITA No.260/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 10 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

220 Taxman 141 (All.) where is was held that "Where payment are made to creditors through cheque and reflected in books of accounts then addition cannot be made merely because of non-confirmation". ITA No.66/LKW/2017 & C.O. No.19/lkw/2017 Page 22 of 27 In the present case the payment to the said party has been made through banking channel and these transactions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Section 11Section 12A

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Section 11Section 12A

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

For Appellant: \nMs. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &

Section 11Section 12A

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Section 11Section 12A

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 12A

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in the income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in Schedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Section 11Section 12A

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTERALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS\, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/LKW/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of IT Act Rs. 38,394/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2- That the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred on facts

SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 124/LKW/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of IT Act Rs. 38,394/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2- That the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred on facts

SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTERALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 125/LKW/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of IT Act Rs. 38,394/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2- That the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred on facts

SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT. LTD.,3RD. FLOOR, BLOCK-A , SURAJDEEP COMPLEX, JOPLING ROAD, LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 121/LKW/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of IT Act Rs. 38,394/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2- That the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred on facts

SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 122/LKW/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of IT Act Rs. 38,394/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (3rd quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2- That the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred on facts

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/LKW/2021[2015-2016(26 Q - Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,450/- in order passed u/s 200A of 1. T. Act, pertaining to F. Y 2012-13 (For 3rd QTR in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the Late Fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts